Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

The other side

As some readers correctly surmised, Eliza's narrative was not entirely accurate. The gentleman involved shares his perspective:

I'm the guy from the story. For what it's worth, I read through both the post and the extensive comments section. I was absolutely shocked to find this post, since Eliza never mentioned to me that she intended to make this story public.... I'm not a Red
Pill person myself, and if we're being totally honest, I found many
of the comments to be somewhat misogynistic. But it also seems like
some of the people posting had some misconceptions about me and how
I acted — and after reading Eliza's piece, I can hardly blame them!

First off, I have no idea where she got the "temper tantrum" term
from. It's a fairly gross misrepresentation of what I thought was
reasonably dignified behavior. I felt she was sending me mixed
signals by inviting me over for one-on-one drinking, and as soon as
she said no definitively, I simply got up, put on my shoes, and
left. I explained to her in a clear, calm voice that I felt misled,
and simply meeting up to build a platonic friendship wasn't my
intention. I even shook her hand to make sure there would be no bad
blood.

As soon as I left, I started getting a string of angry,
invective-laden texts from her, calling me "manipulative" and a few
other choice words that aren't fit for print. I'm not sure what I
did to earn this treatment, but I kept an even keel and kindly asked
her to desist. She did — after about a day. We've since buried the
hatchet (as long as we're crystal clear on where our relationship
stands, I don't mind being platonic friends), but make no mistake:
This was very aggressive behavior on her part, and I did my level
best to keep my cool throughout. I believe I succeeded.

Furthermore, I have no idea where she got this idea of "entitlement"
from, especially coming from me. I didn't believe she owed me any
kind of physical contact, but obviously I was hoping to get
it. I believe I made appropriate overtures, engaging her on a
friendly level at first, then escalating the situation to something
that could turn more intimate.

If you want to call this approach "beta" or "gamma" or
what-have-you, fair enough, but this is generally how I go about
attracting women, and it works well most of the time. If women are
interested, great! We'll make out, or have sex, or whatever's most
appropriate. If not, fine! They're not under any legal obligation to
be interested in me. I'll bow out gracefully and see who comes my
way next.

Translation: this guy is a High Delta, on the low-key side, doesn't like to work too hard for a woman, and is probably more attractive than the average man. He lacks socio-sexual dominance, which is why he tends to underkick his coverage, and he obviously has little Game. Which is fine for him, because he does well enough that he can take it or leave it, as it happens to come or not. He's more concerned about behaving in a gentlemanly and "dignified" fashion than he is with scoring; he only wants to score on the terms he deems appropriate and acceptable.

Eliza on the other hand, is obviously a narcissistic drama queen who is attracted to socio-sexual dominance. That's why she sent me something like five or six emails the first day and expressed her desire to "understand" the mind of a complete stranger on the Internet. She's neither the first nor the 20th woman who has attempted to strike up a private dialogue with me this way. She's also more attractive than the norm and is accustomed to having orbiters at her beck and call. When this gentleman didn't correctly read her intentionally mixed signals, (whether she'll admit it or not, she wanted him to at least try to push through her token resistance), she was angered, first by his contemptible failure to pursue her aggressively, second by his refusal to gracefully accept his demotion to orbital status.

The handshake, in particular, is what triggered the fury. Having failed as a dominant sex partner, (demonstrating his own inferiority) he then rejected her kind offer to permit him to orbit her in a manner that, to a woman, indicated sexual contempt. He would have done much better to simply leave without explaining himself, as had he done so, she would have been upset and intrigued rather than angry and resentful. The "temper tantrum" to which Eliza referred was pure psychological projection.

Had he been a Gamma, the claims of a tantrum would have been credible. A Delta like this, not so much. I have no dog in this hunt, nor do I know who is telling the truth, but the she-said he-said is interesting for how it illustrates many of the theoretical concepts we have discussed in action.

As for the differences in the two narratives, a woman's story is rather like the government and conspiracy theories. You may not know what truly happened, but the one thing you know for sure is that it didn't go exactly the way you were told.

3. Put clothes on and leave WITHOUT saying a word. No matter what she says or does. Don't even stop to pee. If there are other people in the apartment, get IMMEDIATELY in front of them (i.e. go to a common area) to dress yourself. Don't say a word.

4. After you are safely out of her building and in a cab/your car, text her the words "had a fun night.peace" to her (if you have her number).

5. Screen shot this text and save.

6. Turn off voice recorder, email yourself the data file.

7. DO NOT respond to ANY of her texts that evening.

8. DO NOT block her texts. Screen shot every page of texts she sends and save. email all screen shots to yourself.

This is the only way to have evidence to support your story should she try a false accusation as Eliza has tried here. You'll notice here how natural it is for other men (re: betas) to believe the woman over the man. Evidence is your strongest argument.

Alternatively, just sit there naked and cry. She'll be too horrified to admit that she ever voluntarily put herself in a position to even potentially get date-raped by you. Not the most dignified route, perhaps, but definitely the safest.

So, you're claiming you are not a narcissistic drama queen who seeks dominant men?

He is the ultimate Gamma. But my story isn't credible.

It is possible that you're telling the truth and he is not, of course. Gammas are famous for their delusional narratives. So, did you send him "a string of angry, invective-laden texts from her, calling me "manipulative" and a few other choice words that aren't fit for print" or not?

I have a question for the group: Does our collective willingness to believe Eliza reflect some sort of inate white knight attitude in us or does it show that we all think most men are clueless gammas, present company excepted of course?

That post is not Gamma, Eliza. That's merely a Low Delta who lacks Game. I saw no serious pedestalizing, no heavy romanticism, no oneitis, no delusion, merely an inability to abandon his vision of himself as a dignified gentleman.

You could do considerably worse than him. You probably will. He'll do fine with women once he stops trying to be nice to women and treat them like a gentleman should. And, of course, gets a decent haircut.

I don't think most here have a collective willingness to believe Eliza. Rather, that is the only story we have to go by so let's use what we have.

Most/all women cannot be taken at face value when telling a story, especially such a story as this. We tend to project on to men our own female weakness and thought processes. Most here are fully aware of this.

I didn't use any names the first time. I didn't try to shame him. I was giving you guys a story to analyze. But if we're being petty and defensive, I can do that, too."------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL

Not agree with her strange version of the story is "baby behavior"? Her narcissism is chronic.

"Believing" her was never the issue. When a basically anonymous person posts a story online (or emails it, in this case) without any corroborating evidence, there's really no point in trying to decide whether it's true. The only useful thing is to take it as it comes and discuss it as if it is true. Whether Eliza reported the situation correctly -- whether the situation happened at all, or whether Eliza is even a woman -- doesn't really matter, since such situations do happen, so we were able to have a useful discussion about it regardless of its accuracy.

Besides, even her version was damning enough -- about her, because we were able to read between the lines and recognize her type and see what was going on anyway. If she now claims he's a hopeless loser, does that make her look better? Remember when she wanted to hang with him because he was such a cool guy?

That day, he posted several facebook statuses about the "devastating rejections" he had faced in his life, and how all women had done him wrong. That night, he texted me a few angry things. I was drunk, and responded. I probably was too aggressive. But it was certainly reciprocal.

Anyway, I actually agree with Cali. I wanted to have a useful discussion. I don't particularly care if anyone "believes" me, I was interested in the output.

That day, he posted several facebook statuses about the "devastating rejections" he had faced in his life, and how all women had done him wrong. That night, he texted me a few angry things. I was drunk, and responded. I probably was too aggressive. But it was certainly reciprocal.

Anyway, I actually agree with Cali. I wanted to have a useful discussion. I don't particularly care if anyone "believes" me, I was interested in the output.

---So you admit that he didn't have a tantrum in your apartment, even though you previously claimed that he did.

So you're a liar. Proven. By your own words. Natch.

Now, nothing in facebook statuses was about you per se, and no one knew they might or were triggered by your behavior. Heck, they might not have been.

So the Facebook b.s. is not him having a tantrum

SO they only argument you have now is "That night, he texted me a few angry things. I was drunk, and responded."

Post the entire exchange, making note of what you thought was "angry." We will decide, although we already know you're a liar, let's see if any of these "angry" texts by him could be considered any part of a "tantrum" that might justify your delusions.

Wow, this has gotten quite interesting. Eliza, I'm just wondering how such a fine specimen of throbbing masculinity made it alone into your apartment for a one-on-one vinophilia session in the first place, you being so experienced in the sex department.

No, he DID throw a tantrum in my apartment. Maybe more of a "hissy fit." Either way, it was not becoming and fairly pathetic. He also posted on Facebook. He also wrote that blog post. He also sent me texts that night.

I have no interest in allowing you to decide whether our exchange was adequately angry, thanks though. I don't need the validation.

As I have said, I was never interested in sleeping with him. Not remotely. I just wanted to share some wine with a friend and try to talk about some mutual interests. I have done that tons of times, with tons of friends. I can see how you (and he) would think it was misleading, and that was clearly my bad. I take full responsibility for that.

p.s. so classy and feminine and attractive to be drunk two nights in a row and fighting with a rejected male about ticky tack vague behavior. I mean, why would any many think you're an easy lay or not worthy of serious effort?

I have no interest in allowing you to decide whether our exchange was adequately angry

You let us decide the moment you hit send on your email. And if you didn't need the validation you wouldn't have sent Vox, "something like five or six emails the first day." It's also why your getting angry right now. You're not getting the validation you (un)wittingly came for.

I actually sent Vox a number of questions that I wanted the community to address, so I could try to understand Game. That's cool though. Precisely because I don't need the validation, I am not angry. And I don't particularly care what names you call me. Just trying to do some research. But apparently it's all too much for you guys to handle.

No, he DID throw a tantrum in my apartment. Maybe more of a "hissy fit." Either way, it was not becoming and fairly pathetic. ---oh ho ho now you're lying again. First it was a tantrum. Then nothing. Now it's a "hissy fit."

Explain what he did. You don't get to label things.

He also posted on Facebook. --never mentioned you. not a tantrum. liar.

He also wrote that blog post.---defending himself from your lies. not a tantrum

He also sent me texts that night. I have no interest in allowing you to decide whether our exchange was adequately angry ---You are a proven liar. You have just now brought up these texts that "prove" somehow he threw a tantrum the day before he sent them (???). You will not post them. Ergo, as you are a proven liar, we can only assume these "angry" texts don't exist.

You think because you have a twat that you are inherently believable. You do not. And, even if that were so, the fact that you have continuously lied and weaseled here on the nature of his so-called "tantrum" destroys your credibility.

I am seriously doubting whether you were ever sexually assaulted at all. Your lies have piled up too high.

I'd like to write a piece about how there is some nuance to this community that everyone I know (both male and female) calls "horribly misogynistic," and some way in which it dovetails with my experiences with men, my parents' marriage, my dating life. But it's getting hard to write it from that angle, as many of these people have been so nasty.

If a woman didn't believe what has been said about men not caring to have platonic friendships with women, that if a man is attracted to a woman, he will be hoping that friendship can develop into intimacy, I hope they believe it now. If you are a single woman and have single, male friends, take a minute to analyze and be honest about that friendship and what his true motivations might be (again, you're not that fascinating). Don't selfishly keep him in your life for your own needs. Be honest with him and let him go. Yes, men will hopefully learn what "they" say, is a big lie. But women can do their part.

This has all been great to reinforce what we have been teaching our daughters. I've had them read the relevant posts. We've taught them how to properly communicate with guys who are interested in them and have been very clear that we do not approve of nuclear rejections. I see no difference in the 14 year-old-girl who gets asked out by Mr. Normal Guy and not only turns him down but then runs to her friends, "OMG, can you even believe he asked me out, eeewww! What a loser!" and Eliza's - "lets talk of what a gamma this guy is, no really, he is! I just want to understand...blah blah blah."

When she's done with her carousel riding, I wonder if she'll find this guy's financial and professional success appealing.

you have insulted a man publicly by lying about the encounter and aftermath. He defended himself from your lies. You have refused to post proof supporting your story, and have changed your story repeatedly.

I didn't get petty til he got petty and defensive. Should I have been as childish as he was? No, probably not. But sometimes that stuff is hard to resist, as you can see from all the name-calling on this blog.

As always, ad hominem attacks on my character are logical fallacies and meaningless.

Look up the meaning of "ad hominem", Eliza. You're not using it properly. If you lie, and you are confirmed to be a liar, it is not an ad hominem attack to doubt your past, present, or future assertions on the grounds of your being a confirmed liar.

I wanted to try to write an essay/article about Game and how it might fit in with my life and my worldview.

It would be a personal essay, so yes, it would be about me. There's quite the market for personal essays. But it would be an essay about Game within the framework of my experience with it. The personal part is what makes it unique, rather than just journalism.

I'd like to write a piece about how there is some nuance to this community that everyone I know (both male and female) calls "horribly misogynistic," and some way in which it dovetails with my experiences with men, my parents' marriage, my dating life. But it's getting hard to write it from that angle, as many of these people have been so nasty."

Translation: I was going to at least go for the appearance of objectivity, but since you guys are being Teh Mean, I'm pretty sure I'll just skin you.

Eliza, now that further evidence has been presented to the Alpha Game court, I can't fault you for not wanting to sleep with this guy. I do fault you for inviting him back to your place for one-on-one time after he expressed interest. Interest, once expressed by a man, doesn't just magically go away when you say no. However, he does look like he'd make a great Dungeons & Dragons companion, but I think you've ruined that possibility, which is the biggest shame of all of this.

I've had them read the relevant posts. We've taught them how to properly communicate with guys who are interested in them and have been very clear that we do not approve of nuclear rejections. I see no difference in the 14 year-old-girl who gets asked out by Mr. Normal Guy and not only turns him down but then runs to her friends, "OMG, can you even believe he asked me out, eeewww! What a loser!" and Eliza's - "lets talk of what a gamma this guy is, no really, he is! I just want to understand...blah blah blah."

--Exactly.

Eliza truly doesn't realize what a horrible person she is coming off as. Shallow, insulting, petty, drunk, cock-teasing, but most of all, just plain mean and nasty.

Any dude with a backbone who met her off the internet and knew about these posts wouldn't for a second consider dating her or being in any serious relationship with her. She's clearly an easy lay, however, which is what he would go for, if she is in any way physically attractive; the gossipy, vitrol-spewing, insult-generating chicks are such gutter trash.

The good news is, I don't particularly care what you have to say about me, considering that you are 1) clearly trolling me, and 2) a stranger who knows nothing about me. So say whatever you want. In the words of my favorite drag queen, Jinkx Monsoon, "Water off a duck's back."

I have a better suggestion for you, Eliza. Write about how horribly I, and Roissy, and Roosh have treated you. Accuse us of misogyny and blog-rape and textual assault. Tell them what horrible, terrible, very bad men we are. Salon and Jezebel will absolutely eat it up.

When I guy hears "Not interested in dating anyone at the moment"He thinks, "Sweet, I get to be first in line"Also, most guys know that nearly every girl who isn't "interested in dating anyone" is very likely down for a roll in the hay.It's the weakest disclaimer possible. To a guy with a winning mindset, it's practically an invitation. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge about how the modern woman behaves figures he can become the f-buddy and if he puts the wood to her just right he gets to be the BF when she's "ready"

The good news is, I don't particularly care what you have to say about me

--lol. All women care about what others say about them. Your constant defensive posts here show just how needled you are that men aren't quickly flocking to your defense and are, instead, criticizing you. As your self-esteem as a woman depends upon what you believe others think about you, these social criticisms given out here are driving you bonkers.

1) clearly trolling me

---disagreeing with you and pointing out your lies is not trolling, little girl. Look it up (you won't).

and 2) a stranger who knows nothing about me.

--I know that you are a confirmed liar who likes to trash men with lies when said men step out of the place you put them in your life.

That's really all one needs to know about a gossipy, lying little girl like you.

In the words of my favorite drag queen---quoting the mentally diseased in support of your argument only hurts your credibility further, little girl.

Yeah, she doesn't know what trolling really means. A troll has no opinions of his own, he only wants to induce rage. His "positions/beliefs/etc" are completely fluid throughout any interactions, since the only purpose is to frustrate and anger the troll-ee. The very fact that someone has an opinion means they aren't a troll. Learn to internet, tits or gtfo.

Eliza, the manosphere community isn't exclusively Christian. It is, however, more socially conservative in beliefs about sexual roles and expression of contempt for how 'progressivism' and 'feminism' has ruined inter-sex relations and is in the process of destroying Western culture.

I'd be happy to take a shot at answering more of your questions in the most clear manner possible , but I would need an assurance that you wouldn't be writing a hit piece on the Manosphere or any of the prominent Manosphere bloggers, like Vox, Roissy, Rollo, Roosh, etc. kidjupiter9@gmail.com

Eliza, your hunting for "nuance" seems to be a search for something in the Game community to say what you did and how you acted was OK. This is the "female solipsism" angle Vox was talking about in which other people are really there to serve and validate you (despite your claim that you don't need it from anyone, a claim belied by your continued behavior here. If you don't need validation and are just doing research, it's not necessary to demean this Marshall cat after he has his say.) One of the aspects of female solipsism is a remarkable lack of self-awareness, and you have displayed that in spades. Another is dismissing those who say things against you--your repeated statement of "I don't care what you say about me" and your vicious response to SarahsDaughter earlier in these discussions are good examples.

If you really want nuance in your piece, it's going to have to be something like this: (a) here's what I did and my interpretation of it, (b) here's how the Game community reacted to it, specifically focusing on my character and behavior as archetypal of certain female strategies, and (c) what if they're right? If you want a nuanced personal essay, it's about finding something that causes you to rethink your own preconceptions (which, ironically, plays into female solipsism again, but you're wanting to pitch this to Salon, so it's not likely their readership will be bothered by the logical incoherency.)

Or, of course, you could do another Troglodytes in the Mist piece and stroke that readership, thereby cementing the contempt of the Game folks here.

"So, this blog seems to be a primarily Christian community. Is this true for most of the Game believers? Or just unique to Vox and his followers?"

You know, there are nine other blogs linked on the right side of your screen. Through them, you can jump to basically every site that's relevant to what you want to know. What's that word for a thing you do when you're trying to find out about something? Starts with an 'R'?

Or are you doing the journalistic equivalent of "Can you carry these boxes for me?"

I'm not a journalist, so, not quite the same thing. But sure, I'll try to put them out there.

1) My parents have an equal partnership, what I think you might call marriage 2.0. Not "reversed" gender roles, just fluidity in filling the spaces that need to be filled. Dad is a CEO, Mom is a federal judge. They are happy, in love, genuinely like each other, and also have an active sex life. Help me understand marriage 2.0, and reconcile it with my own family?

2) I have my own struggles with men. I have been hurt a lot, and I often have to remind myself that not all men are bad. Do you see a degree of hatred toward women in this community or in yourself, and, if so, where do you think it stems from?

3) How many of you are in long-term, committed relationships? What do those relationships look like?

As always, ad hominem attacks on my character are logical fallacies and meaningless. -------------------------------------------------- ----------------------

LOL, defensive mode on.

It's Amazing! Demonstrate the inconsistencies in her behavior and her story was enough for her to get into "defense mode" and try to rewrite the narrative as a victim and readers as villains ("filled ad hominem attack") .

Did everything would be expect:

1) begins to rewrite parts of the story 2) attacked the image of the gamma boy who did not accept her version of the story. 3) complained about being offended when shown that their version is lacking logical foundation. 4) starts attacking the readers and the blog trying to disqualify them 5) then she says she does not care what they say

Catalog of tactics of deterrence:

1) "You are being unfair / wrong with me, poor me. You're hurting me." 2) "You are evil, and should be ashamed of trying to harm me." 3) "I will speak to the entire internet as you are mean to me" 4) "In reality, you are so pathetic and I have so much self-esteem that can only pity and contempt for you guys."

1) Your parents do not have an equal partnership. All partnership have a leader and a follower. They may share decisions following their strengths. That does not make it equal.

2) I see anger in the manosphere from men who have been lied to their whole lives. I see men working through that anger with the help of other men. I do not equate that anger with misogyny. Just because I can't relate to it doesn't make it wrong.

I do not hate myself. This community is the first that didn't lie to me about my own nature and had the courage to tell me the truth about it. This is the first place that I have felt absolutely free to be a woman.

3) I am married

4) It's a general mixture. As has been said, check the side bar and research it.

I wanted to try to write an essay/article about Game and how it might fit in with my life and my worldview....It would be a personal essay, so yes, it would be about me... But it's getting hard to write it from that angle, as many of these people have been so nasty.

Ah, the old "I wanted to understand Game and see if I could make it all about me because, after all, the world revolves around me, but people here wouldn't treat me with the kid-gloves supplication that I'm used to and they called me on my bullshit, which is not allowed."

I particularly note that she publicly shamed a man who rejected her for not dancing to her tune as all the other men do. When he defends himself, she gets even nastier toward him trying to salvage her wounded ego in defense.

Eliza is not capable of understanding Game. Game reveals truth, especially about women's behavior, and in order to understand Game, Eliza would have to understand the truth about her crappy, entitled behavior and the way she manipulates men, or tries to. She is not capable of that and therefore cannot and will not understand Game.

Red pill awakenings can be painful for many men. But they can be devastating for women like Eliza. I doubt she could handle such truth...

@everyone else: don't answer her questions. She is a liar and has not posted articles written by her. Engaging her will only give her more ammo for her lie-piece, as well as feeding her insanely large, delusional ego.

@vox: could I request her ban and deleting all her posts, please? Not only is she a liar, she's refusing to provide references, and working on a salon.com hit piece.

What do your marriages look like? What do you think your nature as a woman is? Just fundamentally emotional and submissive? How would that fit into working in a professional environment, say, if you had a family that needed two incomes to make ends meet?

Eliza@ 6:31 " I wanted the community to address, so I could try to understand Game."

Eliza @ 6:39 AM " to this community that everyone I know "

Point of order: There is no 'community', we're a group of mostly men that get together to discuss a topic of interest.If you'd really like to 'understand Game' you'd be better off being quiet then toddle off and read the archives here or at the Chateau. Then when you've done your homework, come back and ask a question.

Not a hit piece. Seriously. I'm genuinely curious about this. Genuinely trying to write nuanced material. Already have come up with a few things that relate interestingly to my life.

@Whores, relax. I'm not going to do anything to hurt you, or attack this community. As I said, people have bashed this community a thousand times. That's not an interesting piece. I have no intention of doing so.

Hold up. You want the people on this blog to go out of their way to educate you on Game, so you can write an essay about the whole thing, and you want us to do this without seeing the body of work we will be contributing to?

Not a hit piece. Seriously. I'm genuinely curious about this. Genuinely trying to write nuanced material.---when you post the texts you claim are "angry" and "prove" that dude threw a tantrum we'll believe you.

Until then you're just a liar with a bad line.

attack this community. --of course not. feminazis never do. lol

how many lies do you think men will believe when they're not trying to screw you?

people have bashed this community a thousand times. That's not an interesting piece.----ROFL.

The biggest lie by Eliza yet.

The left CONSTANTLY needs it's propaganda REPEATED. It is because reality so undercuts their dogmatic worldview. This is why every TV show constantly re-invests itself in repeated the left's talking points. Because repetition can help zone out reality. Why do you think they need the Daily Show and Colbert Report nightly?

I have no intention of doing so. ---If at this point anyone here trusts you, I have a bridge to sell them.

Yes, you're right. I did so in a spell of irritation, and it was petty to do so. He was presenting himself in such a ridiculous way that I did, childishly, want to disprove it. I'll delete that post with the link.

Eliza seems to confirm Sailer's Law of Female Journalism:http://isteve.blogspot.ca/2009/07/sailers-law-of-female-journalism.html

Women dont write to inform, but to increase their own SMV.

In both cases the problem stems from going for people who out of your leagues. The major difference is that women get to sleep around with people who are out of their leagues, and men do not.

Women feel entitled to (or feel they will find) a hot, tall, wealthy bad boy who will fall in love with them and turn into a caring family man under their charm. And they will laugh at, and attempt to socially destroy guys who will look for a hot busty blonde with a PhD in home cooking. Both are equally delusional.

Looks like Marshall ha only one facebook status on this (July 3). Sure, it's a bit whiny, but it's not a temper tantrum, and he doesn't call out Eliza. He has one self-pitying post about how his love life sucks and one comment attached to it about how 'that's just how it is'. It's delta, sure... but it's not a giant rage.

I have no intention of posting Marshall's texts. Trust me. It's not going to happen, so you may as well stop asking. I do not care if you think I'm a liar, and repeating that claim will neither make it so, nor cause me to address it.

I will repeat, that was not the tantrum. The tantrum I referred to was in my apartment, immediately after I told him I wasn't going to date him, as he stood up and tried to get out the door as quickly as possible, awkwardly putting his shoes on while standing up.

1) My parents have an equal partnership, what I think you might call marriage 2.0. Not "reversed" gender roles, just fluidity in filling the spaces that need to be filled. Dad is a CEO, Mom is a federal judge. They are happy, in love, genuinely like each other, and also have an active sex life. Help me understand marriage 2.0, and reconcile it with my own family?

Your mother is a federal judge? Those are big shoes to fill. Is she happy? I dont think many women (and even men) will find happiness in a career like that. Happiness comes from a good family. Everything else is bullshit.

2) I have my own struggles with men. I have been hurt a lot, and I often have to remind myself that not all men are bad. Do you see a degree of hatred toward women in this community or in yourself, and, if so, where do you think it stems from?

There is no hatred of women. There is a hatred of the selfish and destructive behavior of women, like the way you treated that guy. Many can relate to that guy, remember how it was to be manipulated by a stupid girl like you, and how society was always white-knighting for the girl and shitting on them for being losers. You should expect alot more of this as game goes mainstream.

3) How many of you are in long-term, committed relationships? What do those relationships look like?

Married for 11 years, with two wonderful kids. I will teach my daughter not to be a mean bitch like you were to that guy, and teach my son to avoid mean bitches like you like the plague, or more realistically how to interact with them.

Unfortunately, you can't be told what the truth is, you have to see it for yourself.

In words that aren't judgments or attacks, ideally, but rather more thoughtful.

Neither can you dictate the terms of a discussion. Another reason you are unable to understand Game. You're unwilling to do your own honest research--demanding people here answer your questions isn't honest research, it's trying to get others to do your work for you, yet another form of female solipsism and entitlement. If you can't understand that, you can't understand Game because you don't understand yourself.

To borrow a leaf from the feminist social justice warrior playbook, educate yourself!

"I have a better suggestion for you, Eliza. Write about how horribly I, and Roissy, and Roosh have treated you. Accuse us of misogyny and blog-rape and textual assault. Tell them what horrible, terrible, very bad men we are. Salon and Jezebel will absolutely eat it up."

Yes, please do, Eliza. Much like feminists do, these men need to revel in their own wounding and nurture their feelings of persecution. There is nothing quite so delicious as having your own worldview validated after the fact.

I have no intention of posting Marshall's texts. Trust me. It's not going to happen, so you may as well stop asking. ---You claimed this "proved" his tantrum existed. You had no problem publicly shaming him or exposing his identity to serve your purpose. You only cringe now because you know the texts don't prove what you claim they prove and are mad because we're not falling into line and believing you, the All-Truth Telling Woman.

I do not care if you think I'm a liar, and repeating that claim will neither make it so, nor cause me to address it.

The tantrum I referred to was in my apartment, immediately after I told him I wasn't going to date him, as he stood up and tried to get out the door as quickly as possible, awkwardly putting his shoes on while standing up. ---LMAO.

Note the liar claims the tantrum was poor Marshall trying to leave the apartment as quickly as possible. That's it. Now trying to get away from a chick who sends mixed signals/turns a man down is throwing a tantrum.

Eliza has now conclusively proven that 1) Marshall threw NO tantrum; and 2) she is a liar for claiming so.

I never claimed that any texts proved anything. If I am wrong, show me the post in which I claimed that they proved anything. In fact, I never tried to prove anything at all. Because I don't particularly care if you think what I'm saying is true.

I'm sorry to have offended, D. Lane. But I don't really feel safe or secure giving my information out here.

I'm not offended, just impressed with your audacity.

But, purely out of curiosity, what exactly leads you to believe you can publish an essay on Game, according to the parameters you've indicated, without that naturally leading to said information? Are you under the impression that you can publish such a piece without anyone here discovering its true authorship? Furthermore, what exactly about this group makes you so uncomfortable?

Marshall, If you're still reading here, it may be best you stop pursuing women until you are willing to embrace some devastating truths. Like Vox said in the OP you are underkicking your coverage because of your low socio/sexual dominance. And, you're finding even these plain jane women are awful to you. My husband was in a similar boat in high school and early college years. He was athletically and academically successful but even average 5's would cheat on him and treat him like crap. He had an illusion of success with women because he was able to get dates and even FWB's but the relationships would be short lived and full of drama. Where his low socio/sexual dominance hurt him the most and ultimately drove him to change everything he was doing was when his FWB got pregnant and he didn't have the socio/sexual status/dominance necessary to save his own child's life. She would not consider marrying him, would not consider sacrificing nine months for him to raise the baby without her. It was by far the most devastation he'd ever felt at the hands of a woman. Though he didn't have the internet, none of this is new information. He sought out how to be successful socio/sexually. By the time I met him, I would have never known he'd struggled in his dating life. When you finally do understand intersexual relations, you will be able to choose which woman you'd like to marry and vet her (not the other way around). She'll need to pass your tests and prove herself to be loyal. And, she'll likely be much more attractive than what you have been settling for. It was eye opening to see the girlfriend my husband had prior to me who was very attractive, still pining for him compared to the woman who murdered his baby (maybe a 5) or his first love who cheated on him (4).

I never claimed that any texts proved anything. If I am wrong, show me the post in which I claimed that they proved anything. In fact, I never tried to prove anything at all.

--Then why did you bring them up?

I'll answer that: to "prove" your story. After all, if these mythical "angry" texts existed, they would "prove" Marshall was just a stupid rapey pig who clearly threw a "tantrum" the night before congruent with the "anger" of his texts.

Setting aside that such "logic" only works on the weak minded (i.e. female brain): now you're caught writing checks you can't cash. and trying to deny the checks exist. It's hilarious, liar.

You keep lying to get yourself out of other lies. It's a clusterfuck of your b.s., spewed forth on the interwebs, proving just how untrustworthy you really are.

Because I don't particularly care if you think what I'm saying is true.

You do realize that the manosphere will seriously counterattack your attempts upon it, don't you? Check Roosh's Return of Kings for what happens when hapless, stupid, lying feminists (such as yourself) attempt hit pieces. The (Google) results aren't pretty for an up-and-coming wanna-be Jezebeller like yourself.

Eliza: "No, he DID throw a tantrum in my apartment. Maybe more of a "hissy fit." Either way, it was not becoming and fairly pathetic. He also posted on Facebook. He also wrote that blog post. He also sent me texts that night."

The Guy: "Actually, now that she's posted the link to my blog, readers can access my Facebook page and see the "women rejected me, boo-hoo" statuses she mentioned. They're a little raw, but they have nothing to do with her. I also didn't write my blog post "literally the day after" I saw her. It was three days later. Not an enormous difference, but certainly a funny usage of the word "literally."

Women truly hate being called on their bullshit. Her ruined reputation here will only continue to make her bitter at the men she hates, who are so evil as to expect her to tell the truth about when she accuses a man of throwing a tantrum and sending angry texts and making tantrum facebook posts---none of which happened.

The only question is: was Eliza ever really raped? The safe money is on no.

Did you initiate contact with SMS after you left? I don't mean, were you in your interpretation the first or second to do it angrily, but were you the first to do it at all?

Not an important thing, it's just that the dynamics of lies somehow fascinate me. Is there ANY way that she could interpret you as having started it (even if with considerable unreason), or is that an unambiguous lie?

I'm betting a large chunk of Eliza's 'story' will detail how the evil menz stalked her out in RL and she was in much fear... ignoring the part where it was only because of her malicious outing of Marshall that this fantastic back of hilarity was even possible.

You came here first saying that you were interested in aspects of Game on a personal level, to see if some of its ideas matched up with your world view. That wasn't entirely true. What you really want is to sell an article. You're not here for enlightenment. You're here for commercial self-interest. You want to delve into an experience and then write about it. Some people embed themselves with an army unit; some people go live with a tribe in New Guinea; you decided to venture into the exotic, scary world of Game.

This makes it very hard for people to take seriously any of your behavior on the blog. Some people may choose to take at face value your representations. Others may have had their suspicions about your from the start, and so they've been trolling you. You've likely been doing your share of trolling yourself. After all, the more interesting, crazy, extreme, unexpected, entertaining quotes you can draw out from people, the more interesting your article will be, right? Especially if you can get those quotes from Vox, you score a real gem for your article.

If you think that people are being mean to you, keep in mind that you've been manipulative in the conversation from the start, and people on the blog began to respond harshly where they felt you were leading us on, being manipulative, and not telling the whole story. People saw this in your behavior, and it gave them license to respond harshly.

Had you come here as a professional writer, making clear up front that you were doing research for an article on Game and laying out how you expected to use the material that you gathered here, some people would have told you to sod off; others might have helped. But everyone would at least have respected your professionalism. As it is, you managed to lose respect on a personal and a professional level through your dissembling interactions. Playing the "Oh, but people were mean to me!" card might attract a few gammas eager to offer you a white handkerchief to dry your false tears, but you won't find many of that sort around here. Instead, what you're finding are people who don't care about your feelings and who are having fun entertaining themselves by toying with you, much in the same way that you think you're toying with them.

But now you've started to become boring, and so a lot of those people are probably going to stop giving you the time of day. There is nothing more to learn from your story. There is nothing to amuse. Time to move on.

Frankly, I don't trust you. Countless numbers of women have come here before you saying the exact same thing. I watched what they have written here then watched how they characterize this community when they leave. I've watched how you've behaved here and how you've mischaracterized this man. You won't post the exchange you had with him and you won't offer any of your previous writings. I'm not terribly motivated to answer your further questions. I won't write you off yet, because part of me wants to think you are sincere about learning. If you are, then stop posting here and start reading. Take some weeks to do so. Just by following the links from here will lead you to a plethora of information where your same questions have been answered hundreds of times. If you can come back here and demonstrate some actual understanding, maybe I will reconsider. In the meantime, I'm with Vox:

You said: That day, he posted several facebook statuses about the "devastating rejections" he had faced in his life, and how all women had done him wrong.

Which as we've now had the chance to check the actual record turns out to have been a lie. Personally I also don't see any reason to not address you questions. I'm not sure why people are worried about this blog getting punked or whatever. The game community is not going to get good press, so I don't see why a hit piece would be an issue, especially when coming from a source that has been treated as an annoyance/enemy from the start.

1) My parents have an equal partnership, what I think you might call marriage 2.0. Not "reversed" gender roles, just fluidity in filling the spaces that need to be filled. Dad is a CEO, Mom is a federal judge. They are happy, in love, genuinely like each other, and also have an active sex life. Help me understand marriage 2.0, and reconcile it with my own family?

Nobody here knows or is particularly interested in your family. As their child it is doubtful that you have an accurate view of them anyway, as basically everyone sees their parents with rose colored glasses. The real question is why is it that you believe your parents are of any significance to the game community.

2) I have my own struggles with men. I have been hurt a lot, and I often have to remind myself that not all men are bad. Do you see a degree of hatred toward women in this community or in yourself, and, if so, where do you think it stems from?

This question is incredibly loaded and patronizing. It's basically you saying that you think we are evil, then asking if we think we are evil too, and then asking why. Do your own thinking. First, for the sake of argument, assume that the game models are correct. Then, once you've assumed our axioms, see if they lead inescapably to hating women. If you believe that they do then tell us why.

3) How many of you are in long-term, committed relationships? What do those relationships look like?

This is just an attempt to disqualify. Not everyone in the game community is anonymous. You can do your own research here.

4) Is most of the Game community Christian? Or just this blog?

There is no reason you can't do your own research here. Even if we gave you an answer, to use it would just be lazy. Here's a reading list: http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/04/top-10-game-blogs.html

This is the internet; there is no privacy. once you publish, even if you don't tell us, we will find out about it, and find out who you are.

And then the fun begins.

As I said, check Roosh's website Return of Kings for what happens to little fish feminist bitch liars like yourself who try to smear the manosphere. The Jezebellers won't protect you; neither will Salon or Slate. You'll be too toxic for school, kiddo. And the left doesn't stick its neck out for nobody, especially little turd fishes like you. You;ll be a "noble sacrifice" to the cause. That's it.

Do you want all your chances of future reporter-ship snuffed out now?

We counterattack fiercely because we know how evil you feminists are---and how much you lie and lie until the lie becomes the truth. You've shut us out of jobs, of careers, of families, of children, of homes, of society.

Turnabout is fair play. And karma's a real, true bitch. And it wears a manosphere mask.

I don't think anyone here is worried about a hit piece. Afterall, first comes this hit piece by Eliza H., and then comes the top google result "Why does Eliza H. think it's acceptable to smear people she knows and out them on the internet to anonymous strangers?" Not the sort of thing a girl wants showing up when she's hoping to sail through HR at HuffPo.

You are a disgusting piece of filth, a sorry excuse for a human being.

First, you bat your eyelashes and feign ignorance about how a man could possibly be misled by your asking him to come to your apartment and drink wine. You then claim that all you wanted was to be friends and socialize.

You then demand that this man serve as your supplicant beta orbiter, and when he refuses, you write about him in this space.

You then out and out lied about the man, claiming he threw a “tantrum” by leaving quickly after you shot him down. It’s pretty clear by now that this man did no such thing. He didn’t throw a fit. He just left quickly and refused to accede to your demands that he should bow at your feet.

To make matters worse, you then outed the man in this space, for the sole purpose of further humiliating and degrading him. And you continue to lie about him and about the interaction between you. You are doing this for the sole purpose of discrediting him and holding him up for public ridicule.

Then you come here and further bat your eyelashes, claiming the “I’m just a lil ol’ journalist and I just want to find out the Troof so I can see if it fits with my “worldview” and write an article about you all.” You then give backhanded insults to Stingray, asking “it’s all just about submission?”

You should be ashamed of yourself. You are a liar, a coward, and an opportunist. You use people for your own benefit. It wasn’t enough for you to use Marshall; you then had to humiliate and degrade him by lying about him and outing him. Now you’re trying to use us by getting us to do your heavy lifting for you so you can write your hit piece.

Tl;drEliza: listen to what this horrible man did to me!Everyone else: actually, sounds like you were the bitch here, not him.Eliza: but he threw tantrums! He texted! He wrote a Facebook status! Here's a link to his page!Everyone else: none of what you're saying matches with the evidence. What did the texts say?Eliza: I'm not telling you, that's too personal! I was raped!

I rather enjoy male displays of peacockery, but I must admit your never ending doxing games display a very feminine flavor of viciousness that I find quite distasteful. Very passive/aggressive and womanly behavior indeed.

"You’re despicable. You are a waste of time and human protoplasm."

You forgot the part about withering crops and shaming the memory of her ancestors. Do try to keep to the script.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You are a liar, a coward, and an opportunist. You use people for your own benefit. It wasn’t enough for you to use Marshall; you then had to humiliate and degrade him by lying about him and outing him. Now you’re trying to use us by getting us to do your heavy lifting for you so you can write your hit piece.

If you're going to do this to someone (you shouldn't) definitely don't do it at a place where people aren't just going to agree with you. I went to Marshall's blog and his professional writing that he linked. He seems like a completely normal guy who is having a rough bit with women. Most of us have been there.

It's also worth noting that while Eliza is a would-be writer and small time blogger, Marshall has a decent writing career. I'm sure she had no idea she was leading him on in any way, and no idea that he might be in a position to help her attempt at a career.

I rather enjoy male displays of peacockery, but I must admit your never ending doxing games display a very feminine flavor of viciousness that I find quite distasteful. Very passive/aggressive and womanly behavior indeed.

I highly doubt anyone would have outed her if she didn't out the guy first. Maybe it was a mistake but it goes perfectly with her inability to notice actions have consequences.

insanitybytes22 - Eliza gave away her own identity. I pointed it out to her before D Lane proved it. She was easily linked to Marshall, and had so much of her writing online that it was easy to compare it to what she'd written here.

I have my own struggles with men. I have been hurt a lot, and I often have to remind myself that not all men are bad.

This is typical. Eliza has "struggles" with men and has been hurt a lot, so she tries to reminder herself that it's not all the men who are at fault, but they really are all at fault.

She can't recognize that in her struggles with a variety of different men, the only common denominator is her. Her casual arrogance in shaming and belittling this Marshall guy reveals why she struggles, yet she can't see it. Her way of trying to "understand" Game by asking others to spoon-feed it to her in ways she finds palatable rather than doing the actual work of honestly reading and considering the mountain of information available on Game. She wants understanding and romance alike handed to her, but only on her terms and without judgments. Yet she can't see it. Game is all about making discerning judgments.

Which is why she'll never understand Game and "how it fits into her worldview." Because Game doesn't fit into her self-centered worldview.

Now it looks like we scared Little Miss Liar away; good. Let's forget her and her worthless self. If she ever publishes, we follow Roosh's rules on how to deal with lying articles. We'll make her lies more known than Jayson Blair's or Bill Clinton's.

Eliza outed this man because he had the stones to write here and give his side of the story. He called Eliza out on her bullshit, and she didn't like it. So she accused him of throwing a tantrum (which didn't happen) and then in a fit of pique, outed him.

This man should be happy that nothing happened between him and Eliza. Bullet dodged.

Eliza, you ripped your own credibility to shreds. Go home and repair the tattered remains of your credibility, which, as a budding "journalist", is all you really have.

For the record, my personal take is that he is a high Omega. A low Delta wouldn't repeatedly barf his frustration with women all over a blog post, but he is certainly baffled at his lack of success. He doesn't really show any Gamma traits, though.

Not to nitpick or anything, Vox, but in your post you called Marshall a "high Delta", while in a comment you said he was "low Delta." Which is it?

The latter. I initially thought he was a high Delta based on his email, which seemed to indicate a relaxed attitude and a reasonable amount of success with women. After reading his post and getting more information, he's a low Delta with some natural challenges. However, he has potential and is clearly a true Delta, not Gamma or Omega, based on the changes he has already made.

SD is right that you have to face some devastating truths, but then she didn’t really go into much detail about it. With due respect to SD, she really can’t give you advice because she’s not qualified to do so. Let me try:

1. Touching on what SD mentioned, most women have been enabled in this society to allow the very worst of their natures to govern their conduct. Most are rude, selfish, self-centered, narcissistic, manipulative, opportunistic, selectively honest at best, and entitled.

2. You have a lot to learn about how intersexual relationships REALLY work. Spend time reading here and at Roissy/Heartiste.

3. As you just found out, an opportunistic woman will not hesitate to throw you under the bus if she deems it to her advantage to do so. She did so because you called her out on her lies. You just JUDGED her – which is the absolute worst thing that can happen to a woman in this SMP. And in Eliza’s eyes, your judgment of her is doubly worse because Eliza considers you to be beneath her.

4. Eliza would not have sex with you because she didn’t consider you sexually desirable. The male traits considered to be sexually desirable are an athletic body, confidence, and dominance in social situations. That’s pretty much it. Not kindness, garrulousness, loquaciousness, sense of humor, or anything else. Confidence, dominance, and she likes the way you look. Nothing else.

5. Women want two things: Security, and freedom from judgment. They don't want much of anything else, really. Not careers, not money, not material stuff. None of that matters except that it provides security. And no one is ever permitted, ever, to assess or evaluate her conduct negatively. Because judgment.

As soon as I left, I started getting a string of angry, invective-laden texts from her, calling me "manipulative" and a few other choice words that aren't fit for print.

Now, this phrasing would be obviously dishonest if he indeed sent the first SMS. Yet this is what Eliza claims.

This fact has no room for interpretation. One of them is just plain lying. The first SMS was sent by one or the other. No gray area. This is telling the exact opposite of truth from one party, and not just interpreting facts in their own favor to the point of dishonesty. It's a fundamentally different thing than Marshall's way of leaving the house being, or not being a tantrum. One is misrepresentation, the other is outright, conscious, deliberate lie.

So, which of them is lying? Well, I have a pretty strong impression, but I'd still like to hear it from him.

If you are looking for a little but not too much nuance. Try googling Red Pill Woman. They might have more of what you want for your article.

You can't really gain nuance from our perspective because that would involve you shifting your paradigm without a clutch.

Before it was called the Red Pill it was known in some circles, as the Wizard of Oz moment. One day Dorthy looked behind the mask and saw the truth. We've looked behind the mask and we've seen the truth.

Trust me when I tell you, it would be much more comfortable to be back in the Blue Pill world and not holding opinions that upset everyone.

We just can't believe the lie anymore. We are Red Pill because you can't possibly be anything else, after you look behind the mask and know without question that Oz the Great and Powerful is just an old carny working the marks.

Sure you know you live in an asylum...but we know the doors are unlocked.

"I have been hurt a lot, and I often have to remind myself that not all men are bad. "

Many men in the manosphere are in the same boat in regards to women. Funny though that while you label these men misogynists, I very much doubt you consider yourself a misandrist for your negative view of men. I hope you see the hypocritical double standard here, but I doubt it.

If you're going to agree with me, spelling my name right would be a good start. Anyway, you don't agree with me at all; you've been very invested in convincing us you were right. This affected, detached air of, "Oh, I'm just studying you guys like ants for my thesis on misogyny in the manosphere" is blatantly false.

"David was unbelievably creative and exciting to date. He was a writer. We used to roll on Adderall and drink beers and stay up all night, writing. Those nights are still some of my best memories. I wrote some fucking insane epic poems and short stories.

It hit me really hard to hear the song. I wouldn’t have expected it to. I haven’t spoken to David in four years. He cut me off the last time we broke up. But I still email him once or twice a year. I don’t know if he reads my emails. I don’t know if he even sees them, or if they go straight to spam. But it makes me feel good (if sad) to have a little bit of contact with him, even if it’s not returned. I’ll always love David, whether we ever speak again or not."

My unsolicited advice to Marshall is do his passive "if you want me you can have me" routine with better-looking women, preferably those whose verbal cascades rise to the level of "personal expression" instead of gender studies talking points. Or not. Keep dating fat women sitting on a $250,000 college degree who speak in powerpoint drivel, and who feel entitled to shame any Y-chromosome who calls them on their shit.

My reaction to this whole episode was my first. When I noted that men should abruptly leave any ambiguous sexual situation, without remonstrating, she went full talking-point pull string robot toy and said that any reference to "regret sex" (this woman's sexual career is imminently regrettable, but whatever) constituted a rape apologia.

All along the absolute disconnect between her comments -- which again are one of 20 in the portfolio of intrepid talking point robot's thumb drive -- and the complete sentences that she chose to address, suggested only an effort to manufacture "an encounter with the dark side." The ambition to write about this manufactured encounter, for Slate or for her creative writing class at the New School, is what this phony approach, and duplicitous elaboration, are about.

Anyway, Marshall, you're a 6, she's a 3, is that your seduction technique? Date desperate women who drop their drawers for sensitive men who are out of their league, because they have a modest level of martial arts training and a functioning vocabulary? Because the world is a bigger place.

As Deti notes, you showed some class defending yourself from this effort to publicly shame you. I'm not sure you realize how close you came to being accused of sexual assault, merely for the temerity of thinking that an evening invitation to an intimate environment for hootch and some verbal hoohaw with a pomo sex pozzie suggested some casual fooling around.

6. Women don't want you to open up to them about your fears, your weaknesses, your inner angst and personal disappontments. Keep that crap to yourself. They want you to be the rock in the storm, not the willow bending in the wind. This is just plain old-fashioned masculinity, which our culture, media, and education has been trying to eradicate from manhood for the past century.

7. Women want to be ordered around a bit. By a confident man who does it with humor and charm (and absolutely no passive-agressive snippiness). They want that from at least ONE man. They will give that man crap about it at first, and if he caves in, they will have nothing but contempt for him. There's a reason Sean Connery is the ultimate ladies' man, not David Schwimmer.

I hope Vox will correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that there aren't hard borders between the rankings on the socio-sexual hierarchy. A low delta could exhibit some gamma behaviors, or look more gamma at some times and more delta at others.

my understanding is that there aren't hard borders between the rankings on the socio-sexual hierarchy. A low delta could exhibit some gamma behaviors, or look more gamma at some times and more delta at others.